First Innings for Polybian Romans

[Keraunos]

Expanding my ancient armies into the Western Mediterranean has been on my to do list for a long time.  Excited by finishing my first Polybian Roman Legion I gave it an outing without first having paused to think if I had enough figures to go with it as allies and enemies.  It ended up as not a properly balanced Roman army and the opposition was a bit of a jumble as well, but the game went well.  Some good lessons were drawn for development of my ancient rule set and the legion looked splendid on the battlefield.  A pictorial account has been posted here.
Some background to my approach for building up the legion is here.

[Duncan Head]

A very good-looking battle, and a well-written report.

[Imperial Dave]

100% agree

[Chilliarch]

I like your philosophy with regard to the nature of combat in the ancient world - it's important that a system encourages players to make use of historical deployments etc. Otherwise, we're all playing Warhammer...   

[Keraunos]

Thank you for the kind comments. 

On the matter of how to approach ancient warfare on the table-top, it is easy to have the idea of being as close to the what we know of warfare at the time but translating this into a game scheme runs into two obstacles. 

First is that of creating a game that is enjoyable for the participants and manageable within the constraints of space, time and figure collections available.  A gamer who is placed in the position of a general who was defeated comprehensively on the day in history will find it difficult to summon up enthusiasm for the game if there is no means to achieve another outcome but how much flexibility should be allowed?  I balk at the idea of Camillan era anti-elephant carts being deployed outside their historical context and am baffled by rules that allow this but accept the need to allow the gamer to make different command decisions from those taken at the time.  Also, I tend to avoid re-fights of actual battles, preferring scenarios or campaign set ups that allow historical enemies to meet with armies and on ground influenced by player choices so each side can feel invested in the game.

The second obstacle is that the state of our knowledge about warfare in the ancient world is full of uncertainty.  Rules that assume too much certainty about the organization, fighting abilities and command of ancient armies and that lavish too much attention on minor differences and exotic elite units go against the grain of my inclinations.

So, it seems to me that a set of rules that 'accurately' captures the experience of ancient warfare is not achievable.  One has to look for a scheme that 'feels right' and gives enjoyment to those who use it.  Finding a group of friends who have a similar cast of mind and a shared sense of what is enjoyable - and being open to considering that your own ideas might not be the best - is the key to happy wargaming.

[dwkay57]

How did the separate command roles for the Gauls and Etruscans work and did the Gauls had separate chieftains for the two tribes?

[Keraunos]

The Gauls were under unified command since I realised only hours before the battle that while I had lots of command figures for Romans and Greeks I had neglected to do any for the Gauls, so had to make do with the command base from my Gallic heavy cavalry.

For the separation between the Gauls and Etruscans, the Gallic commander could not use a command token to order the Etruscans to do anything - and vice versa - whereas the Roman commander could tell the allies what to do with themselves when he wasn't gallivanting off with the Equites.  The Etruscan leader had a very limited stock of command tokens to begin with.  These were used up in changing the facing of the light troops and cavalry to deal with the outflanking allied cavalry, leaving the leader only able to give direction to one unit per turn and only if attached to it.  Under the rules, if a leader is attached to a unit that then engages in melée he cannot detach himself until the melée is concluded without the unit taking stress at his abandoning them and the leader risks being killed, wounded or captured while in melée.  Depending on the quality of the general, he may be able to inspire troops to whom he is attached to fight harder, or rally more easily, but the Etruscan General was not of high quality.  I aim to paint a more flamboyant looking figure to lead the Etruscans in future - along with doubling up the quantity of close order infantry and giving them their own light troops.  I hope a gaudier general will attract better quality rolls!

[Imperial Dave]

How did the separate command roles for the Gauls and Etruscans work and did the Gauls had separate chieftains for the two tribes?

when two tribes go to war.....